I think Jorling's remark that the regs were cut because
of "the chilling effect of rising sentiment against regulation" should
be closely examined.

First of all, how did this chilling effect manifest
itself to him? Did Jorling decide to cut back the regulations based on
his own estimate of the public mood? It seems unlikely that an Assistant
Administrator would take that responsibility on himself without consultation
with the Administrator and the White House. Especially in light of the
fact that the public mood at the time was very much up in arms over the
recent revelations of Love Canal!

Secondly it is well known that Jorling had run-ins
with the Council on Wage & Price Stability, and the Council of Economic
Advisors regarding their attempts to pressure him to cut back regulations
to fight inflation. I think it was Ham Jordan who publically invited him
(without naming Jorling) to leave the government if he wasn't willing to
sacrifice environmental regulation to fight inflation.

It therefore seems much more likely to me that "the
chilling effect against regulation" came from the White House rather than
from Jorling's head despite his denials.